Please Tell Us Your City

Ad

If a 'disruptive' innovation in medical (or other) technology is developed, it may be difficult to test this ethically in an RCT if it becomes 'obvious' that the control subjects have poorer outcomes—either due to other foregoing testing, or within the initial phase of the RCT itself. Ethically it may be necessary to abort the RCT prematurely, and getting ethics approval (and patient agreement) to withhold the innovation from the control group in future RCT's may not be feasible.

Historical control trials (HCT) exploit the data of previous RCTs to reduce the sample size; however, these approaches are controversial in the scientific community and must be handled with care.
[94]

Due to the recent emergence of RCTs in social science, the use of RCTs in social sciences is a contested issue. Some writers from a medical or health background have argued that existing research in a range of social science disciplines lacks rigour, and should be improved by greater use of randomized control trials.

Researchers in transport science argue that public spending on programmes such as school travel plans could not be justified unless their efficacy is demonstrated by randomized controlled trials.
[95]
Graham-Rowe and colleagues
[96]
reviewed 77 evaluations of transport interventions found in the literature, categorising them into 5 "quality levels". They concluded that most of the studies were of low quality and advocated the use of randomized controlled trials wherever possible in future transport research.

Dr. Steve Melia
[97]
took issue with these conclusions, arguing that claims about the advantages of RCTs, in establishing causality and avoiding bias, have been exaggerated. He proposed the following
8 criteria for the use of RCTs in contexts where interventions must change human behaviour to be effective
:

The difference between experiences that result in
eustress
and those that result in
distress
is determined by the disparity between an experience (real or imagined) and personal expectations, and resources to cope with the stress. Alarming experiences, either real or imagined, can trigger a stress response.
[60]

Stress management encompasses techniques intended to equip a person with effective coping mechanisms for dealing with psychological stress, with stress defined as a person's physiological response to an internal or external stimulus that triggers the fight-or-flight response. Stress management is effective when a person uses strategies to cope with or alter stressful situations.

There are several ways of coping with stress,
[61]
such as controlling the source of stress or learning to set limits and to say "no" to some of the demands that bosses or family members may make.

A way to control stress is first dealing with what is causing the stress if it is something the individual has control over. Other methods to control stress and reduce it can be: to not procrastinate and leave tasks for last minute, do things you like, exercise, do breathing routines, go out with friends, and take a break. Having support from a loved one also helps a lot in reducing stress.
[52]

One study showed that the power of having support from a loved one, or just having social support, lowered stress in individual subjects. Painful shocks were applied to married women's ankles. In some trials women were able to hold their husband's hand, in other trials they held a stranger's hand, and then held no one's hand. When the women were holding their husband's hand, the response was reduced in many brain areas. When holding the stranger's hand the response was reduced a little, but not as much as when they were holding their husband's hand. Social support helps reduce stress and even more so if the support is from a loved one.
[52]

Lazarus
[62]
argued that, in order for a psychosocial situation to be stressful, it must be appraised as such. He argued that cognitive processes of appraisal are central in determining whether a situation is potentially threatening, constitutes a harm/loss or a challenge, or is benign.

The City of Frisco is proud to offer free sprinkler system checks to its residents! In 2017, Frisco's irrigators performed more than 3,700 check-ups. This saved Frisco homeowners millions of gallons of water and helped to keep water costs down for the entire city.
Check out this
great video
about what to expect during your check-up!

Broken Spray Head

Did you know:
Sprinkler heads with the wrong nozzles on them are one of the most common sources of water waste in Frisco. The best bet is to always buy the smallest sprinkler nozzle needed to cover the watering area.
It's important to periodically check your sprinkler system and make sure that all components are in working order and functioning efficiently. Sprinkler system components are exposed to the elements, and over time they can develop inefficiencies that lead to wasted water.
Our licensed irrigators are here to help! We would like to help you save water and maintain a beautiful landscape.

Schedule a free sprinkler system check-up with a City of Frisco licensed irrigator:

During your free check-up, our licensed irrigators can guide you through your sprinkler system operation and evaluate its water use efficiency. A free check-up usually lasts 30 minutes to an hour.

You'll learn how to find and repair minor broken or misaligned sprinkler heads, make scheduling adjustments to your controller, and increase your water-use efficiency outdoors with retro-fit devices such as a smart controller or a rain and freeze shutoff sensor.

To schedule a free check-up with one of our licensed irrigators, use the
myFRISCO
app or
call usat 972-292-5800
.

WaterWise now offers FREE Commercial Check-ups.

Businesses interested in this service should
use this online form
to send their contact information to WaterWise.

Contact Us

George A. Purefoy Municipal Center

In the United States, the work is not required to be non-commercial in nature for copyright protection and unlike the US trademark law, the work need to be necessarily lawful. Therefore, works created for commercial purposes, such as advertisements can also be granted a copyright.
[21]

This theory bases the grant of copyright protection on the effort and labour that an author puts into her work as opposed to the creativity involved.
Locke's theory of labour as property
has often been extended to give jurisprudential basis to this theory of copyright law. In the case of
V. Govindan v E.M. Gopalakrishna Kone,
[23]
it was held that compilations of information would meet the threshold of 'originality' under the Indian Copyright Act since it involves some level of 'skill, labour and brain'.
[24]
A similar line of reasoning was adopted in the case of
Burlington Home Shipping Pvt Ltd v Rajnish Chibber
[25]
where a database was held to be original enough to be protected by copyright under Indian law. However, like in other jurisdictions, this theory was discarded by the Indian Courts also and the focus was shifted to the creativity involved in any work.

The EBC Modak case is the Indian counterpart of the
Feist Publications case
in terms of the test it laid down. It concerned the copyrightability of Supreme Court judgments that were copy-edited and published by Eastern Book Company. These judgments were published along with 'headnotes' that were written by the Company itself. While explicitly discarding the Sweat of the Brow theory, the Court held that simply copy editing would not meet the threshold of originality under copyright law since it would only demonstrate an "
amount of skill, labour and capital put in the inputs of the copy-edited judgments and the original or innovative thoughts for the creativity would be completely excluded.
"
[26]
. Thus, it introduced the requirement of 'creativity' under originality. With respect to the level of creativity involved, the court adopted the 'minimal degree of creativity' approach. Following this standard, the headnotes that did not copy from the judgment verbatim were held to be copyrightable.